Q. Were not those boxes in your office with their faces or fronts turned out, exposing the seals in such a way that had they been interfered with at any time the fact would have been noticeable?-A. Well, as they came in I placed them with the seals out, in the main office, where I sat myself, and I took the seals and faced them outside between the end and the records of the parish court there.

Q. Are the fastenings of this court-house secure?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Would it be possible for any one to come in here at night or at any other time without your being aware of it?-A. Not without breaking the windows.

Q. You were present at the time the commissioners examined their boxes and identified them as being in the same condition as when delivered to you?—A. Yes, sir. Q. You were also present at the recount of these votes?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Were those boxes at the recount in the same condition as when they were delivered to you?-A. Yes, sir; the same as when I got them.

J. A. Landry, deputy clerk of court, p. 62 Record, says:

Q. Mr. Landry, you have access to the court-house at all hours?—A. Yes, sir; I have a key to the clerk's office, and previously I had a key to the sheriff's office. I have access to the sheriff's office, I believe, since the 9th of January last.

Q. Have you ever at any time left the court-house or the clerk's office open, or in such a way that any one could come in here and tamper with these ballot-boxes since they have been in the clerk's office?-A. Well, no, sir; I never have. Whenever I was absent or went away, the clerk himself was here. I have never left it long enough to know that any one could tamper with them unless I should have caught them at it. Q. Then can you testify that to the best of your knowledge and belief while you have been here these boxes have been safe?-A. Yes, sir; I have always seen them there, and to my knowledge they have not been tampered with.

Q. You see the boxes every day or two?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. If they had been tampered with over night or at any time, would that fact have been noticed by you, do you think?-A. Yes, sir; so far as I know the boxes have never been tampered with so far as taking any papers out or adding any papers to them, or anything of that kind.

C. H. Gordon, clerk of court, pp. 66 to 110 Record, says:

Q. You are, at present, clerk of the parish court?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. You are, at present, in custody of the ballot-boxes in this court?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Who delivered them to you?-A. My predecessor, Judge Crowell.

Q. Have those boxes been in your possession ever since they were delivered to you up to the present time?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Can you swear positively, beyond all question, that, to the best of your knowledge, these boxes have been safely in your keeping up to the present time?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are the fastenings of the clerk's office here secure?—A. Yes, sir. Always, when we go away from here at night, we fasten these windows on the outside, and when they slam they cannot be opened from the outside at all.

Q. If there had been any entrance made into the building during your absence from it, could you have detected it?-A. Yes, sir. They would have had to break the lock or pulled the wedge from the fastenings of the windows. I am here during the day all the time.

Q. From whom did you receive the ballot-boxes?-A. From Judge Crowell, my predecessor.

Q. Can you swear positively, to the best of your knowledge, that while those boxes have been in your possession they have not been tampered with?-A. Yes, sir; I can swear positively that while those boxes have been in my possession they have never been touched at all. They were handed over to me when the judge vacated the office, and they were in that other room piled up from the floor, one on top of the other; and I moved them from there and put them under this table, which then stood by that window, and after that I cleaned up here a little bit, and I moved this table over here and put the boxes where you find them now, on top of the table I handled them around, and I might have handled them carefully if I had thought there was going to be a contested election case; but, not knowing anything about it, I did not pay much attention. I might have left them where they were.

Q. Were not those boxes piled up in the room with their seals facing outward, so that they could be seen every day as you came in ?-A. Yes, sir; they were turned right around the reverse of the way they are now in that room on that other side.

Q. If those boxes had at any time been tampered with over night, could you, on the next day when you came in, have noticed that fact from the difference in the papers and in the seals?-A. Easily, sir. I would not only notice the fact of the boxes having been tampered with, but I would notice the fact that some of these windows and doors had been tampered with in order to get in here.

Q. Would it be possible for any one to enter this office where these boxes were kept without leaving some traces?-A. No, sir.

Q. Are the fastenings of the windows and the doors secure?-A. Yes, sir.

Q. Are you or some of your deputies here always during the day?-A. Yes, sir; I am here nearly all day from the time I come here in the morning. I get here about 7 o'clock, and go to dinner, and I am back here about 1 o'clock, and I stay until I lock it up myself at night.

Additional testimony of the commissioners themselves, showing conclusively that the ballot-boxes, when brought forward for the purpose of the recount, had not been tampered with, will be noticed further when each poll is taken up separately. Suffice it to say that the evidence is conclusive that the ballot-boxes had been safely kept, and had not been tampered with between the time of the election and that of the recount.

Such being the case, the presumption follows that the ballots found in the boxes when the recount was made were the identical ballots cast at the election. The peculiar character of the case, and the fact that in the parish of Iberville the party of which contestee was the nominee was largely in excess of the other party, render it necessary for the committee to notice at some length the history of the election in that parish, and to set forth the causes which operated to deprive contestee of his party strength. It is true that Iberville is largely Republican, but the evidence is conslusive that the leaders of the Republican party in Iberville, as well as some of the most prominent Republicans in the State, were opposed to the election of contestee, and combined to defeat him. The testimony of W. W. Wharton, pp. 33, 121, Record; Wailes, R., p. 116; Gordon, R., p. 108; Robertson, R., p. 103; Holmes, R., p. 113; Ennis, R., p. 90; A. J. Gordon, R., p. 96; Loud, R., p. 67; Bess, R., p. 97; Commager, R., p. 99; Hunter, R., p. 90; Barnes, R., p. 93; Deslonde, R., p. 43; Roberts, R., p. 84; Weightman, R., p. 85, as well as that of others, shows very strong opposition to the election of the contestee in Iberville Parish on the part of the Republicans themselves. The following, from the testimony of Hon. W. W. Wharton, pp. 33, 121, Record, sheds much light upon the manner in which this fight within the Republican ranks against the contestee was conducted:

Q. Then, what was the decision and determination among your friends and yourself in reference to Dr. Darrall's defeat ?-A. The determination was come too early in the year that if I would take hold of the canvass here and organize the party thoroughly, I should be supported for the senate throughout. When it was ascertained that Wakefield was a candidate, and information was given that Dr. Darrall was supporting Mr. Wakefield, and the conduct of Dr. Darrall appeared to me conclusive that he was supporting Wakefield and giving me merely a negative assistance in this parish, whilst opposing me elsewhere, I called my friends together to discuss the matter. We discussed it many times, and we came to the conclusion that we would hold the matter over the doctor's head; that we would not indorse him in the proceedings of our convention; that we would hold it over, him and that I would talk to him and notify him, and that some of my friends would talk to him, and sound him, and ascertain his views in reference to the matter; and that in case it was necessary to proceed to extreme measures to force him to support me, the regular nominee, we should do so. Most of my personal friends were very active in the matter. Others of my political friends were negatively acquiescent about it; but the entire direction of the matter in this parish was in my hands, as far as the canvass was concerned.

Q. Was not the electtion also in your hands, in so far as regards the printing of the tickets, the general management of affairs, the distribution of the tickets, &c. ?— A. After the preliminary organization of the parish, and after we had secured the parish committee and the parish convention, I was appointed by the committee as chairman of the campaign committee of the parish, with power to conduct the canvass, arrange meetings, disburse funds, print tickets, and do everything else in reference to the matter. I was appointed at a meeting of the committee. I believe the vice-president, Judge Crowell, was in the chair at the time.

Q. What were your reasons for keeping the matter a secret in the parish of Iberville to a certain extent except as among your particular and personal friends?—A. For this reason, that I wanted to do two things, to be elected myself and to beat Dr. Darrall. To do this it was necessary to avoid any handle that the opposition to myself

might take up. I was opposed very bitterly here by Senator Allain and his friends who would have seized upon anything of the kind as a weapon to fight me with. During the day of an election it is very easy to get up quite a disturbance by anything of that kind. On consulting with my friends, we agreed that the leaders should be thoroughly conversant with the matter themselves, sound their own leading men, have it understood, and carry it out that way. In certain localities of the parish where the opposition to me was strongest, we would proceed quietly and do but little. Q: Did you yourself bring up from New Orleans those tickets that were printed with Darrall's name on them, others that had the name of J. H. Acklen on them, and others with the name of the Congressman left in blank?-A. Yes, sir; I had them printed myself and brought them here.

Q. Where did you have them printed?—A. In New Orleans, by a man by the name of Hopkins, on the corner of Camp and Common streets, in the Storey Building. Q. Did you distribute all those tickets yourself?-A. All that brought up, or nearly all; there were a couple of hundred, perhaps, that I did not distribute. I gave out every ticket myself.

Q. Give the names of some of those men that you distributed tickets to.-A. I will give the names of all of them. I will state, in the first place, that I gave to no one only one kind of ticket; that is, I gave to no one a ticket that did not have Dr. Darrall's name on it without at the same time giving him a ticket with his name on it. I gave Mr. Deslonde tickets with Dr. Darrall's name on, tickets with Mr. Acklen's name on, and tickets without either name on; I gave the same to Mr. Davidson, to Mr. Barnes, to Mr. Ennis, and to Mr. Harris, who were both together; to Preston and to Robertson, from the third ward, who were both together, and to Mr. Gordon, in town here, who came to the house for them. I sent some by Mr. Tate and by some one else that Davidson sent here from Bayou Goula to get some tickets.

Q. Were you not surprised on the next day after the election at the returns as made by the commissioners in regard to the Congressional vote?-A. I was not surprised at all when I found out how the votes had been counted. I was at half a dozen different polls during the day, and I was here at this poll when they counted the votes. Isaw them commence to read off the tickets and thought it was all right, and went off to get my supper or a drink or something, and when I came back I found that they had counted only half a dozen tickets in that way, and had then commenced to count them all in bulk. That was, may be, an hour or three-quarters of an hour after the counting commenced. Just about that time the box from the third ward came in, sealed and delivered, and I asked Mr. Talbot, “How did you get through so quick as this?" He said, "We counted the votes straight in bulk." Then I knew that the votes in that box had been counted straight. I said, "You counted all the black tickets straight Republican ?" He said, "Yes, and all the others the same way." Then I knew that all the Republican tickets that had your name on them and all the blanks had been credited to Darrall. Whilst I was considering in my mind whether I should insist upon a recount, the box from the Wharton schoolhouse came in, and I asked Mr. Bruce, "How did you count the votes there?" He said, "We took all the black tickets and tallied them straight, and then read the scratched tickets." He said, "Why?" "Why," I said, "I thought you would read them out one by one." A little while afterwards he came back to me and said, "Noland tells me that you had some tickets printed with Acklen's name on them." I said, "Yes." Said he, "Do you think there was any in our box ?" I said, "I know there was one in there, for I voted one myself." He said, "We counted it for the doctor, then." He said, "What are we going to do about it now?" I said, “I do not know; you had better let it alone." I had come to the conclusion that it was better to let it alone until I saw what was the next best thing to do.

It is not gainsaid that the regular Republican tickets for this parish were all in the hands of Wharton for distribution, nor that these straight Republican black-back tickets on which contestant's name appears were printed and distributed before the election. Out of the 12,000 printed for this parish 6,000 bore the name of contestant, 4,000 were blank as to member of Congress, and 2,000 had the name of contestee. That they were quietly distributed throughout the parish the night previous and the day of the election is shown in the testimony of W. W, Wharton (Record, pp. 33, 121), C. H. Gordon (p. 108), James H. Tates (p. 57), E. A. Verrett (p. 270), P. G. Deslonde (pp. 42, 202), Fred. Robertson (p. 103), A. J. Barnes (p. 93), Lycurgus Bess (p 97), Charles A. Bruslé (p. 51), Charles Commnager (pp. 99, 100), Giles Hunter (p. 100), A. J. Ennis (p. 90).

The contestee adduces the testimony of Craig (Record, p. 272), Carrielle

(p. 196), Wilson (p. 266), Coleman (p. 255), Frank Deslonde, (p. 205), Davidson (p. 250), Piernas (p. 261), and Verrett (p. 209), to show that, though given out, these tickets were not voted, simply because these witnesses allege they did not discover them in the boxes during the original count of the votes on the day of the election. The witness Davidson alleges he destroyed 1,000 bearing Acklen's name, which were given to him for distribution. The manner of the count at the different polls, however, in the opinion of this committee, entirely precludes any definite testimony as to examinations of tickets bearing contestant's name; and the weight of the testimony conclusively shows that these tickets were not only distributed to the voters, but voted, and that the commissioners of election, either unaware of the fact that such tickets were in the boxes, as they generally so testify, or willfully, by counting them in bulk and simply from the headings, credited the contestee with a large number of these votes that bore the name of the contestant.

As the change in this parish by a recount was a large one, this committee, in a careful and thorough investigation of all the facts connected therewith, have deemed it best to take up and treat each poll and all the evidence on both sides connected therewith separately, not only as to the distribution of these Acklen and blank tickets, the manner of the count of the votes, but also as to the identification of the box by one or more of the commissioners who signed and delivered it to the clerk. An examination of the recount, as compared with that made by the commissioners of election, shows the changes at polls 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 to be material, and all in favor of contestant, with the exception of poll 3, where there is a gain of 17 votes for contestee. The other polls show but slight changes, there being at poll 9, however, where the contestant was originally credited by the commissioners of election with 121 Republican votes, by reason of the Democratic commissioner having been secretly apprised of the fact that Acklen's name would appear upon the Republican ticket, one vote is found among these for contestee. At no other poll does it appear that the Democratic commissioner was aware of such a fact; on the contrary, each and all testify that they were unaware of the existence of these tickets bearing Acklen's name until after the election, and failed to examine any of them, with that name in view, during the count.

At poll 1, it appears from the testimony of contestee's witness, J. S. Davidson (Record, p. 250), that he gave to Verrett, an officer at this poll, two packages, of 500 tickets each, one containing solely the tickets blank as to member of Congress, and the other, Acklen and Darrall tickets mixed together. It further appears that this officer, Verrett (Record, p. 260), who is also contestee's witness, testifies that he "gave them to several gentlemen around there, and they distributed them, and I distributed some of them myself, inside of the room where the poll was." Rev. James H. Tate, Republican (Record, p. 57), likewise testifies that he saw them circulating around, and that they were being given out to the voters, and also that he himself voted one.

It further appears from the testimony of Amadée Roth, commissioner (Record, p. 56), that the tickets were not scrutinized, but counted as straight Republican or straight Democratic. He says:

I just headed the tickets, and when I saw it was a straight Republican ticket I put it down, and when it was a straight Democratic ticket I put it down.

This is corroborated by other testimony at that poll.

But the contestee claims that at the recount the paper covering the box appeared fractured or torn, and although the clerk alleged that this had occurred through his carelessness in moving the boxes from one

part of the room to another, yet this committee, with a strict regard to the interests of both parties, and particularly those of contestee, on a recount, refuse to accept this box as recounted, but let it stand as originally returned in favor of contestee.

J. L. Davidson, colored Republican, and witness for contestee, alleges (Record, p. 248) that he received from Wharton 2,500 tickets the night before the election, and that 1,000 bore the name of Acklen. He alleges that he and Whittecoe examined and separated the Acklen tickets that night at his room; that he retained these Acklen tickets at his own room, while Whittécoe took the box and all the other tickets to his own room, some distance away. This latter fact is corroborated by Whittecoe, another of contestee's witnesses, who says (Record, p. 275) that they "selected them (the Acklen tickets) all out and left them at Davidson's house." He also says that he was at the poll at half past five o'clock next morning, with these tickets for distribution. But Davidson alleges that he distributed the tickets. Unless Davidson did, as this committee are led to believe, distribute these Acklen tickets, then here is a conflict of testimony on this point; but he admits (same page), on being asked as to their being at his poll:

I seen just an hour by sun, or perhaps later-I seen some of them, but not more than five; I think it was about two, lying inside of the room-inside, back of the poll; how they came there, I don't know.

This clearly indicates their presence at the poll; but he further says, p. 250, that he sent to Wharton for 500 more by a man named Joe Hardie, and he received from him the 500 sent for, all of which were blank as to member of Congress. From the testimony of W. W. Wharton, Davidson was in the movement to distribute these Acklen and blank tickets, and from his own admissions he played a double part; either he deceived Wharton or Whittecoe, and as Whittecoe is a very ignorant negro and testifies he can barely read and cannot write, it most probably was this latter.

But the distribution of these tickets at this poll is proved beyond question by the testimony of P. G. Deslonde, contestee's witness (Record, pp. 42 and 43):

Q. Did you receive any tickets from Mr. Wharton yourself?-A. I did. Q. Were those tickets you distributed the black-back tickets?-A. Yes, sir. Q. All of them?-A. Yes, sir. I gave a bunch of them each to some of my friends. I took them to be Republican tickets, because they were headed Republican tickets. Q. Were they alike in every respect, with the exception of the names you have mentioned?-A. Yes, sir. In the morning I took all these tickets to be Republican tickets. During the day I discovered the name of Mr. Acklen upon the tickets and that some were blank. Therefore I discovered that there were three tickets.

This is corroborated by Wharton, who says he gave these tickets to Deslonde; and, further, this same witness again establishes their circulation at this poll by saying, in answer to the question (Record, p. 43):

Q. In visiting the various polls of the parish on the day of the election, did you see the Republican ticket with Mr. Acklen's name on it at more than one poll?-A. No, sir; I saw them when I came back about three o'clock at Bayou Goula poll.